W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xformsusers@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Processing nested binds

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 13:57:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAc0PEXxHkr8nzERHJe=rJ4FVjm6QvoX6JrXEJE=2FmBjpLZoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: "public-xformsusers@w3.org" <public-xformsusers@w3.org>, Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
> So the `<bind>` text is specific for the a reason similar to `<repeat>`.
> And I think you have to make that distinction between the two cases:
> general handling of bindings for things like `<group>`, `<switch>`, etc.,
> and handling of repeated constructs like `<repeat>` and `<bind>`. There
> doesn't seem to be a way around making a distinction because the result
> that needs to be achieved is different.
> My point being, that that distinction is exactly what 6.2 seems to make,
> and I don't understand why you think it doesn't.

Re-reading, it does express that!

(By the way my understanding of what we appeared to disagree on during the
last call was a bit different: I thought the issue was about how an XPath
expression in the nested bind evaluated given its context. But maybe I
misunderstood that.)

To clarify: your point is that if section 6.2 expresses both what happens:

1. with single-item bindings
2. and with sequence bindings

then text which is specific to `<bind>`:

1. does not need to be present
2. or worse, must not be present or there is room to interpret the text as
requiring more repetitions of nested `<bind>` elements than is desired.

Is this a correct understanding?

As far as I am concerned, as long as we agree on the actual effect that
nesting binds has, then we are good.

Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 21:57:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:47 UTC